Why can't many of today's r&b artists cut it live?

(xpost also what mark said)

i dont consider badu, stone, and scott as R&B artists, even if they have been trying to move in that direction as of late. theyre still in the increasingly withered neo soul bracket.

OH THE AGONY.

Are we just content to be fed the bullshit we hear, see and perform from the R&B artists many of us appear to look up to, or are we that conformed by bling-bling bravado?

Even with the actual process of loop sampling (of which, I've nothing against and fully endorse if it is something fresh, new and inspiring as "Crazy In Love" was last year, and now more headz know The Chi-Lites thanks to that), is there still a void somewhere if, say, the artist can't replicate something creative to a wholly loop based steal than the old cliches we've seen above?

Are they really being cheated then?

Does the aforementioned constitute what a live R&B experience should/is about?

"Cheated" in the sense that they have been conditioned by the stereotype.

More like don't have to. Most R&B artists don't come up on the club circuit anymore--haven't for years. Without that live-performance experience, it shouldn't be any suprise that many artists come up short in that regard.

OTfreakin'M.

And you wouldn't be the same Lee G who chatted on MK & Alana's "Love Changes", would you?

the notion that lack of a live circuit is why most R&B fans have no use for great stage performances isnt strictly right either - lots of singers still work their way through talent shows and open mic clubs, things of that nature.

most of the singers still come up through the church as their predecessors did, but thats more a learning place for singing, not live performance.

id say the real problem is that the music itself is so producer/production reliant that it virtually negates the point of live performance.

Many of them had to sing in church, though, so it's not like there's NO live performance context

OTM. Aretha was a singing-in-church girl, and she turned out alright.

this idea that R&B is all about bling didnt really happen until the mid-late 90s. the fact that hip hop has influenced R&B so much to its detriment is also why R&B acts are poor live, rappers tend to put on crappy shows as well, with just a DJ or a DAT.

Yeah they sang in church, or at local talent shows, etc, but once they demonstrated their vocal skills and were noticed by a major label, they didn't need to refine their performance chops. All their development was focused on making records and videos, cause that's what brings in money: good records and videos, not good shows. The difference between rnb artists of yore and those of today is kinda like the difference between movie stars and broadway actors.

well no, ive seen many a boring neo soul show where there was a band, but at least it wasnt akin to karaoke night with someone singing over their own record (not even an instrumental).

there isnt much difference between a britney and a beyonce show, one might sing a tad more than the other, but theyre both explosions/military dance routines first, singing/music second.

Btw, how's Ursher at the simultaneous singing/dancing?

Kinda like when an electronic act goes out on the road with a bunch of hired musicians - there's always the danger that things will veer off into bad funk jam (by "bad" I mean "aimless noodling") territory.

and anyway, ive seen live stevie wonder footage from the late 60s and sly stone tapes from the same period, and theyre not routine AT ALL.

this idea that R&B has never been good live is excluding james brown from the 50s onwards, the motown and stax revues, sly stone, al green, god knows how much else. even in the 80s, bands like zapp and cameo were still good live (yes they were funk groups but their role in music was pretty much the same as the R&B artists of today).

bilal
erykah badu
jill scott (even though i dont much love her)
fertile ground

im sure theres others, i just cant think of any right now.

Bilail: Oversouler.
Badu: Crazy
Jill Scott: Bland

D'Angelo's the only one of that crew worth a damn.

prince did take a lot of his post-83 tour routines from JB but dangelo says the exact same adlibs prince did on his 86 parade tour. its more than uncanny!

"Bilail: Oversouler."

at times but NO. he has far too much going for him to be reduced to a mere oversouler. he doesnt oversoul though, not in the cliched trad-sense of the word. he just doesnt know how to keep his singing in check sometimes, but its usually incredibly inspired anyway when he does derail his vocals. i saw him last week though at the jaz cafe and he was surprisingly tempered.

"Badu: Crazy"

sanity is overrated and she is not *that* kooky.

"Jill Scott: Bland"

well yeah, but good singer, good band, some great renditions. too self satisfied and pretentious at times for me though.

"D'Angelo's the only one of that crew worth a damn."

well hes definitely the only one of that crew to not give a damn about making anything with relative frequency.

Splooge seems to come up trumps on all points every time here. It seems the ass wins over the voice in performance stakes, but can it be all these R&B performers are just more aggressive extensions of what the Mickey Mouse Club was all about?

The visual aerobics always tends to take prominence to the lyrical, though the DAT machine isn't always the evil menace that many assume. As previously mentioned, sometimes it can enhance a hip hop set, but when things go wrong with it, there's no back-up for embarassment!

And anyhow... Do the consumerable fans really care? As long as they get to see their "idols" in the flesh, then any other factors seem diminishes compared to the euphoria of "being there"?

"its either loops like say, crazy in love, or drowned in horrid synths."

"OH THE AGONY."

im not saying all synths are horrid or that all loops are bad, but since thats all 90% of contemporary R&B offers, i think im entitled to wish for more.

most of the people in this thread seem to have no standards for R&B and dont even think it was ever good live which is just laughable and wrong, so dont seem to feel the need to place todays music against any older (higher) standards. todays R&B is mainly a growth of the type of pop-soul that came about in the 1980s though, which isnt necessarily a bad thing, but much of it is simply pop music made by black artists, which means it gets called R&B, when it isnt. but even the computer soul and funk of the 80s saw the artists giving decent performances live. personally, i wouldnt mind seeing beyonce on stage with some guys operating MPC 2000s and keyboards, which is what most of her songs are made with, i think it could be more interesting than doing karaoke with a DJ like shes a rapper or trying to reinvent the songs with a traditional band, where it just sounds odd.

Oh, go eat a dick. Having different tastes from you does not mean we don't have standards; get off your fucking high horse.

Well, it's cause r&b is ultimately crappy cheese-whiz. Not really music.

heh.

but maybe this is the problem: michael jackson set the bar just impossibly high, as regards multi-virtuosity of technique, in the studio and live - and to match this (ie if you think "any show which doesn't have MJ-level technique in every department is basically cheating its audience"), performers who were v.good at one thing but maybe not another (or good at both but not together) had to resort to technological cheating? which becomes a kind of cynicism, even if it produces high-quality sound and allows high-quality physical performance

mj's achievement is way the exception, and seems to have come at a fucking titanic psychological cost to him - so maybe the cheating is the only way a performer gets to save their sanity?

the problem w."throw ya handz in the air" and "all right" etc is rote use and lack of imagination in re direct audience address (ie saying the same stuff everyone else does), not the Deep Crime of Departing from the Strict Song-Set and Engaging w.the Audience Vaudeville Style (again though, the problem is probably repetition and over-exposure leading to unreasonable expectations, as much as anything) (ie a good functional audience-working shtick*, such as has been used by performers since time immemorial, gets worn out bcz there are SO MANY performers now, and ppl get to see SO MANY shows)

*JB's cape routine eg, classic by virtue of familiarity and repetition, is pure manipulative shtick: you cd say it is "content-free" compared to a JB lyric if you liked (!?), but the idea that words have intrinsically more show-value content than dance routines and bodymovement seems a bit weird to me (if they did, more performers shd perform behind a curtain)

Michael Moorcock nailed it in 'The Condition of Muzak':

[Jewish booking agent attempting to convince Jerry Cornelius to "liven up the act" with soul stage routines:]

'He began to sing in a low, lugubrious voice, hunching his shoulders, awkwardly moving his hips. "Baby, baby, baby, you broke my heart in two--now two hearts beat as one, but they're not having any fun, 'cause both those hearts belong to me! See? Lovely stuff." He made a cryptic windmilling motion with his arms. It was on the strength of this motion that Jerry, for the first time in his life, had developed racial prejudice while watching Top of the Pops. He had discovered that he hated black people. Then, after, another week or so of watching similar acts, he decided that he hated white people too. Now he was hating Jews. He wondered just how much disharmony Top of the Pops was responsible for. It was surprising what music could do for the racial situation.'

http://www.gothicorlando.com/elric.jpg

"YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH"

"GET LOW"